Page 1832 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
deal or a better opportunity to deliver their policies. But we know now from Mr Corbell that he at least thinks they are a joke, that they belong on the sideline, like some sort of observer or spectator. That is the government’s official position on the ACT Greens: “You are the sideline. You are not in this game. We don’t accept that you are the balance of power.” Clearly, they do not accept that you are third-party insurance. And I suspect a lot of people in the community now see the Greens as “Lite Greens”, as I think Mr Stanhope called them. I think it is probably more “pale green”, because they talk a lot about what it is that they would achieve but they do not seem to have the leadership or direction to deliver it.
Today might just be a lovers’ spat. This is a bit of public posturing and a bit of a lovers’ tiff, a bit of posturing. “We need to tell our people we’re doing this stuff, that we just don’t bake cakes when we take credit for other people’s work, that we actually do stand for something, that we are substantive.” Or it is an admission of failure.
The Greens can tell us which one it is but, if they truly want to hold the government to account, they will actually vote for my amendment to direct the government to do this. We will back them on that. And then we will see what the government do. We know how the government deal with these matters. They treat us with contempt when we try to hold them to account. That is the executive. But they do so because, in the last 2½ years, the Greens party have let them get away with it. There used to be three levels—grave concern, censure or no confidence in ministers. We have slaps over the wrist. We now have counselling. We have all these sorts of things, except for standing up to the government. And the reality is that, when you will not stand up for what you believe in, if you know it to be wrong, it is quite clear that you stand for nothing.
Mr Rattenbury, for the first time in probably 2½ years, is trying to stand up for something. Good luck to him. The interesting question will be how the government will treat them. The problem for the people of the ACT, though, is that promises have been made and they will be watching very carefully whether promises will be kept. And in the 77-odd weeks left to the election, it will be interesting to see how the relationship between the two parties opposite goes.
Mr Assistant Speaker, you have been around long enough and you would remember the campaign your party ran against the independents, including the Greens, in 2001. The Labor Party do not share. Play fair, they want to be the majority party. That is how they like it. They will take your agreement, they will take your votes, but what they will then do, as Mr Corbell has so eloquently said, is relegate you to the sideline.
Here is the chance for the Greens to see whether or not they accept that relegation. And here is the chance for any other member of the government to come down—and perhaps the Chief Minister would like to come down—and say, “Mr Corbell is wrong.” It would be interesting to see that, given some of the pronouncements and the communiques that have come after the quarterly meetings that they have. After the last one, in February this year, Mr Stanhope said, “Look, there is a good understanding between the Labor Party and the Greens in relation to this agreement.” If there is a good understanding between the Labor Party and the Greens in relation to the agreement, it is interesting that we have got this motion today. It is very interesting that Mr Rattenbury, at least, felt the need to attempt to at least be looking
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video